Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 16
MSNBCW 15
CSPAN 9
CSPAN2 3
KGO (ABC) 3
KQED (PBS) 2
FBC 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 77
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 77 (some duplicates have been removed)
tonight in deficit reduction efforts. it's a path that is sure to lead to many obstacles from the other side. chief white house correspondent ed henry has the new developments in a time sensitive story. >> in a dramatic move today, president obama seemed to be trying to split the budget talks to two pieces. suggesting he and lawmakers come up with spending cuts next year after they avoid the fiscal cliff, by extending middle class tax cuts and raising taxes on the rich. >> it would give us more time than next year to work together. on a comprehensive plan to bring down the deficit, streamline our tax system. do in a balanced way. >> the president apparent shift away from spending and tax altogether now in a big deal could increase the chances of a market rattling fall off the cliff. since the republicans want spending cuts included. >> republicans are willing to put revenue on the table. but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> the president's move came one day after two other big developments, suggesting democrats
to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un
will be speaking about the so-called fiscal cliff and that is a reduction -- and deficit reduction. we will have that live here on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern. over at the white house today, president obama is meeting with small business owners. at 12:30, jay carney will hold a press briefing and take questions from reporters. this afternoon, the president and vice president will meet with the mexican president who takes office december 1. the press briefing today at 12:30. on capitol hill, the house of representatives returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on their agenda this afternoon five bills including a measure requiring the department of a homeland security to report on security. later this week, a student visa program. also this week, the democratic leadership elections. that will be coming up later this week. live coverage of the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a number of senators have been meeting with u.n. ambassador susan rice in the wake of her comments following the attack on the benghazi consulate. just wrapping up is a brief news conference and statement with senators. here is a look.
clout with congress. the goal: a sweeping deficit agreement to avert $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases at the start of 2013. from the white house came word that president obama will try to build public pressure on congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and prevent tax hikes for everyone else. white house spokesman jay carney. >> well, the president believes very strongly that the american people matter in this debate. because this debate is about them. the question of whether or not taxes go up on 98% of american tax payers is a very important to ordinary americans. it is not just a matter for discussion between the president and the senate minority leader. or other congressional leaders. >> brown: to that end the president met privately today with small business owners. on friday he'll travel to the philadelphia area to speak further on the issue. not to be outdone, house republicans said they'll meet with small business owners and workers in their districts arguing against the president's plan. in the senate republican my ontario leader mitch mcconnell dismissed the
's translate that. according to the congressional budget office, falling off the cliff would cut the deficit but stop economic recovery in its tracks. now presidents in both parties usually try to put money in people's pocketses to stimulate the economy. president bush sent taxpayers a refund check while obama has cut payroll taxes. p falling off the cliff is a reversal of that approach. that's why the cbo estimates economic growth would drop under 1% to just .5%. and unemployment could jump over a point to 9.1%. heather, we know the costs, we understand this game because the republicans have been playing it for a while. do you think anything has shifted post-election in way that will actually get a deal done? >> i think what's really come to roost for conservatives has been the fact they were pushing a vision for our economy that included basically just this, except for the tax increases, right. they said starting in 2010, the deficit is the most important thing, it's the most important thing, and now, they're basically faced with immediate deficit reduction and realize, oh, this is actuall
reduce the deficit. it doesn't make a lot of sense to get rid of a deficit reduction program, as part of a deficit reduction deal. the white house already rejected boehner's idea. obama care will not be part of debt negotiations. boehner is up to something here, don't you think? something else, that is. if you watch john boehner closely over the last two weeks, you can see him laying the ground work for the latest ploy. he call eed obama care the law the land, but also tried to link it to obama care and the budget. >> you had said, next year, that you would repeal the health care vote. that's still your mission? >> well, i think the election changes that. it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected. obama care is the law of the land. i think there are parts of the health care law that are going to be very difficult to implement. and very expensive. and at a time where we're trying to find a way to create a toward a balanced budget, everything has to be on the table. >> but you won't be spending the time next year, trying to repeal obama care? >> there are certainly may be part
term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well-off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising national health expenditures. we
dollar deficits every year and throw a tantrum if someone suggests that maybe the taxpayers shouldn't keep subsidizing ever last program washington ever dreamed up. they are reckless and ideological approach threatens our very future. and anyone who is serious about solving the problems we face should ignore all of that starting with the president. megyn: meantime some of the president's supporters unleashed and ad blitz targeting key lawmakers reportedly spending close to $300,000 on an ad buy that talks about increasing taxes but leaving spending alone. here is part of that. >> how do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit, by creating jobs and growing our economy not by cutting programs that families rely on most. megyn: join me now is stu varney, who is host of varney & company. and chris stirewalt. you have all the unions unleashing and ad blitz to target the home states of key lawmakers trying to build pressure on them to not agree to any entitlement spending cuts and they are going directly to the american people to sell that message. what do you make of it? >> i
to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit. bill: what happens if they don't see a deal? 90% of americans will see a tax hike in 2013. and families that make between $40,000 and $65,000 will have to pay an extra $2,000 to washington, d.c. in taxes. martha: concerns over america's fiscal cliff have sent the markets lower in premarket trading. there is a look at where the dow is poised to open this morning. with the dow, the s & p and the nasdaq all trading lower. speaking of that, a new round of violent protests break out in egypt as police fired teargas into the crowds. here are some of those scenes. >> unbelievable. more than 100,000 people flooded into downtown cairo. this time they are protesting the current president martha maccallum and his power grab. they are disillusioned with what he has brought to their country. then you have this happening. police firing teargas. gypt's highest courts refusing to work in protest of morsi's actions. steve harrigan is streaming live from cairo. the protests looked like the unrest we saw in that same square back in 2009 and the arab
over the next ten years. that's about 40% of the $4 trillion deficit goal that we have. that's the same thing that simpson-bowles had, 40% revenue. so the only way you can reach that, incidentally, is to allow the rates to go up. just this idea of we're going to take a look at the tax code, change some credits and deductions, you can't come up with enough money. >> so any deal will have to include at least some hike in the tax rate. >> i don't think there's any other way to approach it. that's why the president has taken this position. if we're going to make sure, for example, that we spare families making $250,000 a year or less from any income tax increase, then this idea that we're going to go into the tax code and find $1.6 trillion over ten years becomes almost impossible. we need to protect those middle income families. >> you said today that congress should deal with the fiscal cliff crisis now, but tackle entitlements, the entitlement questions, later. yesterday, senator lamar alexander said the only thing the president has to do to get an agreement from republicans now is in hi
puts forward his plan. how is he going to close the other part of that deficit? you know, his proposal right now, the most he can say would raise would be about $68 billion when our deficit last year was $90 billion. what is the president's plan for closing the additional additional $1 trillion worth of deficit? i think that's incumbent on the president to put forward his plan. >> from your standpoint alone, there's no way you see fit in the coming 35 days that you would break that pledge with glove norquist. >> well, thomas, let's use a couple numbers here. even with this measly economic growth we've seen the last three years, revenue at the federal government has increased $344 billion per year. if we just return to a normal economy that returns about 18.5%, that would increase revenue an additional over $400 billion per year, that's $750 billion of revenue per year through economic growth. and the president, his proposal would raise 1/10 of that but would put at risk the economic growth and that $750 billion. so -- >> sir, with all due respect, though -- >> counterproductive. >> tha
rate will necessarily go up. we talk about debt and deficit in this chamber, if we remember less than 12 years ago, 12 years ago we hit a budgetary surplus of $258 billion. meaning that we were taking in $258 billion more in each year than we were spending. how was that possible? it was made possible by having created 22 million private sector jobs in the previous eight years. . what was the policy then? the policy was to invest in the american economy, in the american people, in education, in scientific research, and infrastructure. so i think the lessons from our most recent past are very instructive today as to what we should be doing in washington to promote growth. the gentleman from california spoke of a plan i was working on, that's a $1.2 trillion investment in rebuilding the roads and bridges of america. that plan, advanced by the new america foundation, would create 27 million private sector jobs in five years. the first year alone, over five million jobs which would reduce the current employment rate from where it is today to 6.4% and in the second year, 5.2%. now public in
cut the budget, if we cut the deficit and raise taxes, i don't think that's the worst thing in the world. as warren buffett has been saying for the last 24 hours, are you really going to turn down a good investment opportunity just because the tax rates are a little higher in we're talking about a minor 4 percentage point increase in the upper end of the tax rate here. it's not life or death. you know, cutting the deficit and raising taxes, if they can't agree, which congress has shown themselves inability to agree. if they're not going to agree, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world for tax rates to go up and for the deficit to be cut. i think that could result in a big economic boom. >> wow. >> and then, let's say two weeks after we go over the cliff, after the 1st of january, they then cut attacks for everybody -- >> but here's the problem with that notion. it's not fine. but, john, it's not fine because a lot of ordinary middle class people -- >> that's the problem. >> -- are trying to spend money at christmas and they're deeply anxious about what's going to happen
" and he joins me now. thanks for being with us now. we appreciate it. you compare the deficit to an insurance policy. you say it doesn't make you any richer in the short-term, but in the long-term, it is helpful. i want to actually put your statements up. you say let's agree to keep deficits very high for at least another year. and then let's buy an insurance policy against that debt crisis when we can really afford it. so lots of republicans and democrats out there would disagree greatly with you. say that america's ability to pay its debt is really important. how would you respond to them? >> right. i do think that there's a thing that's taken place in washington deficit reduction will stimulate us to enormous growth in 2013. the fact is what deficit reduction is, is tax increases and spending cuts, both of which take economic activity out of the economy. so this really is extremely similar to insurance. if i buy, say, flood insurance. what i'm doing is i'm paying a short premium in the short-term, to protect my house in the long-term. that's exactly what deficit reduction i
, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, a requirement to do so. the foundation of national power is ultimately economic. in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundational. i think in the u.s. we have both an opportunity and requirement to get our house in order. i believe what hundreds of tatars and 435 members of the house will step up -- what 100 senators and 435 members of the house will step up. >> so we have america under control because of the amount of treasuries? >> [indiscernible] our position to the nine states is very, very decisive to strengthen our relationship. there is no intention for us to use this economic relationship and a different context. we are very satisfied. that's all. >> let me open up to the floor. with four microphones around the room. fast.going to go i will call on people whose names i don't know. but that is josh rogan from "the cable." >> thank you for your time today. i
down deficit. the campaign promise is to cut the deficit in half. he said he would do it by focusing at the center of his proposal, going to be entitlement reform. we have seen none of that. more than four years. >> bret: interesting op-ed by bill archer and chris cox in "wall street journal" saying that the real outlay is $86 trillion of unfunded liabilities. obligations when you include all of the federal government, what it owes. that is obviously dwarfs the $16 trillion in debt we hold. >> which raises the question why are republicans allowing the entire debate to be about taxes? and about the war among republicans over holding the line on the norquist pledge or not. when what obama is proposing on raising the rates on the 2% is a triviality. it will reduce the deficit from $11.01 trillion to $1. $1.02 trillion. eight cents on the dollar. nothing. lunch money. it's rounding error. yet that is all the debate we are hearing. obama understands this. he is trying to, he is not trying to fix our fiscal issues and problems. he's trying to destroy the republicans. by insisting that ther
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
. >> how do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit? by creating jobs and growing our economy, not by cutting programs that families rely on most. for working families it's all about putting americans back to work. not cutting the things we rely on most. >> there are signals they can't accept the kind of entitlement reforms in medicare and social security that senator graham is saying are prerequisite to a deal. >> let me tell you, first, george, and you know this, social security does not add one penny to our debt. not a penny. it's a separate funded operation. and we can do things and i believe we should now, smaller things, played out over the long term that gives its solvency. medicare is another story. only 12 years of solvency lie ahead if we do nothing. those who say don't touch it, don't change it are ignoring the obvious. we want medicare to be there for today's seniors and tomorrow, as well. we don't want to go to the poll and voucherizing it and we can make meaningful reforms without compromising the integrity of the program, making sure that the beneficiaries are n
the country, of course the loss of the stimulus money when i came in we had a big deficit we had to overcome. having to get deeper into that whole would not be good for the economy. liz: thank you for joining us rea.we like our governors of evy state. he is an independent. if so many defense jobs. our governors on the edge week. utah governor in another fox business exclusive. they have a very low unemployment rate unlike rhode island, but he says it will be impacted if d.c. cannot reach an greement. the closing bell ringing in about 47 minutes. would you do business in a dangerous area if you thought the risk might bring huge rewards? libya wants business in a huge way. we're not just talking about oil rigs and pipelines, but also massive infrastructure projects, roads, schools, you name it. part of the royal libyan family. he is back in his job is to sell libya on u.s. companies. find out what he thinks there is a big payoff for american businnss. a fox business exclusive. having you ship my gifts couldn't beasier. well, having a t olocations doesn't hurt. and a santa to boot! [ chuckles
on a comprehensive plan to bring down our deficits, to streamline our tax system, to do it in a balanced way, including asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more so we can invest in training, education, science, and research. now, i know some of this may sound familiar to you because we talked a lot about this during the campaign. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. this was a major debate in the presidential campaign and in congressional campaigns all across the country and a clear majority of americans, not just democrats but also a lot of republicans and a lot of independents agreed we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt middle class families. and i'm glad to see, if you've been reading the papers lately, that more and more republicans in congress seem to be agreeing with this idea that we should have a balanced approach. so if both parties agree we should not raise taxes on middle class families, let's begin our work with where we agree. the senate's already passed a bill that keeps income taxes from going up
debtor deficit spending, or where spending cuts of any type might come or how we are going to address the larger issue: we all know that tax hikes on the rich ain't going to get it down. progressive groups reportedly held a private meeting with senior obama administration white house officials. according to the "washington post" the groups were told not to worry about any entitlement reforms or big budget cuts. the so-called safety net programs according to them are not going to be touched and the progressive groups walked away feeling very happy. the report say the white house feels it does not need to compromise, period and is willing to let the big tax hike happen on everybody. the big tax hike is what everybody will face not just the rich or the middle class. they think they'll be in a better position to negotiate with the g.o.p. after that happens. chris stirewalt joins me, host of power play on foxnews.com. >> i was a little frightened, i thought something i, really bad was happening instead of the standard badness. megyn: that is terrifying. [laughter] back down to business, t
law, that's something that would actually make the deficit picture look a lot worse over the next ten years. that's obviously, you know, that cuts against this narrative. on the other hand, there are a lot of things about the obama care law that are going to be fiscal problems. for example, the law treats people who are on the exchanges really differently from it treats people who get insurance through the employers. so there are a lot of those things that probably should be fixed but aren't going to yield big savings in the short term. as a matter of deficit negotiations, i think boehner is not on strong footing. >> interesting. there are a lot of problems with obama care. i think obama would be the first person to acknowledge that. he didn't get a lot of things he wanted in there. but david frum, what is john boehner doing? what is he possibly trying to gain from this? >> okay, i'm going with your crazy luke a fox option. >> good. >> john baner is about to have to bring the more conservative part of his caucus, some very bad news. republicans don't have a wlost leverage. tax cuts ex
and your party come to this debate with big deficit because you and president bush and dick cheney lied this country into war and you had a lot of lies on foreign policy about wmds. president bush even said once in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's g
is an integral part of deficit reduction. from my side of the table, bring entitlement reform into the conversation. social security, set aside, doesn't add to the deficit. when it comes to medicare and medicaid, protect the integrity of the program, but give it solvency for more and more years. >> reporter: a source with engine of knowledge -- with knowledge of the negotiation says there is no date set in stone for the next meeting among the principle negotiate othe timing will depend on the progress of staff member, in the next few days. but we should not be surprised if they get together, sthiem week. shannon. >> shannon: we wish them much luck. thank you. our worst-case scenario, there isn't a deal. the former economics director it'll peter tracy, tells what did you say to expect if that happens and what will happen if it doesn't. let's talk positive, first. who do you think, if something comes together, will be the key players. >> we need to see president obama move off the position of entitlements and propose real reductions, tangible, real, so there is something to bala
its budget deficit and brought unemployment to the lowest in the nation. >>> coming up, a basketball round up. and remembering the man who transformed baseball. plus new york city's iconic empire state building shows off some new high tech lighting. ♪ if it wasn't for you ♪ don't know what i'd do ♪ i'd have nothing to prove ♪ i'd have nothing to lose ♪ i'd be all lost at sea ♪ with no reason to make it through ♪ [ male announcer ] introducing the celebration diamond collection. ♪ if it wasn't for you [ male announcer ] diamonds so expertly cut, we guarantee them for life. zales is the diamond store. let love shine. . >>> just a tragedy in new york last night as a commuter bus plow the into a long island home and killed a 6-year-old boy inside. the bus had swerved to avoid a pedestrian when it lost control. at least nine bus passengers were treated for injuries. >>> to georgia where a similar accident almost killed a toddler inside a family's jewelry store. this 18 month old ran into his father's office just seconds before the 84-year-old driver plowed the car right in
are going to have to look at entitle reform. entitlement. reform is the only way to get the debt and deficit under control. we've got to take it on. >> chris: let me ask you, you say you would consider more revenue but with loopholes -- >> there's so many of them. >> chris: you voted against the bush tax cuts a decade ago because you said too many of the benefits go to the wealthy, not the middle class. once they were passed you have changed your view and said i'm not going to oppose them. it you could get a deal for entitlement reform and take a chunk out of the national debt, why is the 35% top tax rate which you oppose sacred? >> every economist i respect says if you raise tax rates at this time -- the president says that a couple of years ago -- it harms the economy. we're trying to help the economy. unless i'm convinced raising tax rates will be beneficial, obviously i think there's reason and grounds for my position. i also believe that we can and must get an agreement, otherwise i think first of all the markets are going to start reacting. >> chris: we'll talk about that in the next s
are in a period where the budget situation in this country, a huge deficit we are facing, the debt confronting this country are limited resources and will continue to limit the resources. i did not believe we worked on budgets and the defense department. i do not believe we have to choose between national security and fiscal security. we are at the pentagon is implementing a strategy that we put together in order to deal with the fiscal challenge we are presented. congress handed us $487 billion to reduce the deficit -- the defense budgets over 10 years. my approach was to say, wait a minute. we are not just going to cut across the board. we are not just going to hollow out the force as we have done in the past. every time we have come out of the war, whether it was korea, vietnam, the cold war, we cut the budget across the board, and we hollowed out the force. we are not going to repeat that mistake, so for that reason, i said to my service chiefs, chairman of the joint chiefs, we have got to sit down and develop a strategy for the future that will provide the defense force for the 21st centu
.s. economy back into a recession. both congress and the white house are trying to make a deficit reduction deal to avoid the financial chaos. and president obama's reverting to some campaign mode right now to try to make sure things are done his way. our white house correspondent dan lothian is joining us now with new information. what are you learning, dan? >> reporter: well, wolf, while senior members of the administration including secretary geithner, chief of staff jack lou also top advisor meeting with -- the president himself trying to sell his vision to the public, but some say it's not a winning strategy. it doesn't take a gps to find the way to the fiscal cliff. much more difficult, finding the off ramp. at the president's first meeting with congressional leaders more than a week ago, there was a sense of optimism. >> my hope is is that this is going to be the beginning of a fruitful process. >> reporter: there was a follow-up phone call with house speaker john boehner, but a much different approach this week. the president's calendar is packed with sales pitches to the public, wh
have to tackle the deficit. it's not only what we spend today, it's what with we owe tomorrow. sessions ha said we know what happened in the stimulus of 2009, $800 million was basically wasted. the president himself admitted the failure. there wasn't enough shovel-ready jobs, and not only that, it did not prevent national unemployment from being below 8%. in fact, it hasn't been below 8% for most of his term as president. so sessions was a shot over the bow to senators and house members, don't be fooling around with the stimulus. we've got to fix spending, and we also have to tackle revenue. but it's not going to be done with you now throwing a huge stimulus that we can't afford. ainsley: jeff sessions says spending will go up. do you agree with that? >> no. and as much as i love mr. smith dose to washington, i don't think one senator should be able to buck the will of the american people. two weeks ago we had an election, and the voters spoke loud and clear. they prioritize job creation over deficit reduction. now, the reality is the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, and i think
is an integral part of deficit reduction. yes, from my side of the table bring entitlement reform into the conversation. social security, set aside. doesn't add to the deficit but when it comes to medicare and medicaid, protect the integrity of the program but give it solvency for more and more years. martha: alabama republican jeff sessions is the ranking member on the senate budget committee. senator sessions good morning. good to have you here today. >> martha, thank you. martha: a lot of talk this morning after these sunday shows and watching both sides talk about this fiscal cliff about who seems to be moving and in what direction. what are you hearing, what are you hearing from lindsey graham who says, quote he is willing to break that pledge on taxes under certain circumstances? what are they really saying? >> i'm not sure what they're saying. there's a lot of this talk going on. i don't know who is speaking for the republican party. the house of representatives where you have a substantial republican majority but the truth is that this country does not need to go through t
the typical washington show game and take a few bills. if we want to cut the budget deficit we have to look at everything that's been passed and make decisions against each of those. if obama-care is the most important policy considered its survives. if there are other things being considered it doesn't survive. that's the only way to approach cliff that's running out very quickly. rick: if there is a deal spending cuts have to be put on the table and obama-care cost a lot of money. >> that's not true. it cuts the deficit in a 10-year period and even more so over 20 years. john boehner said in his own op-ed that he tried two different ways to get rid of obama-care, going to the supreme court and in the election. they tried 33 times to repeal obama-care in the congress and failed all 33 times. the bottom line is now we have obama-care. it is the law of the lands. we need to take the off the table and focus on the bush tax cuts which american voters decided they want to keep for people under $250,000 and they want to get rid of for people making more than $250,000. rick: obama-care lowers the
and we'll have another trillion dollar deficit according to cbo moving into next year and we can't afford anymore like that. if we take what obama would be willing to support which is increase in the age of, again recipients and other type of reforms like that, then we have a legitimate negotiation as we move into it. but when you have liberal members of the democratic party stepping forward and saying before the process begins they will not accept any type of entitlement reform, it makes it untenable process from the beginning. jon: is it no entitlement reform, simon, or is it perhaps entitlement reform when it comes to medicare? i haven't heard anybody talk about reforming social security on democratic side? >> that is good question and i think, look i think we're in the early stages, chris, of this whole debate. eric cantor went on morning joe said and won't raise taxes on anybody under any circumstance which would you argue is stopping negotiations. both sides are laying out positions right now. there are negotiations going on. clearly the fiscal cliff is scaring everybody into action
, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit, which peaked in 2009, is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. however, the cbo projects that under a possible such a policy assumptions the deficit could still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover, under the protection, the deficit and the ratio of federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never accept underpass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. a credible framework to set a better fiscal policy, one in which the ratio of federal debt to gdp eventually stabilizes or declines, is urgently needed to maintain stability. even as policy-makers address the urgent issue of longer run out stability, they should not ignore a second key objective, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the head winds that are alre
the debt and deficit under control. and we have to take it on. >> chris: but let me ask you. you say you would consider more revenue but through loopholes and deductions... let me ask you, you vote against the bush tax cuts, a decade ago, because, and i went back and looked, you said too many of the benefits go to the wealthy, not to the middle class and once they were passed you changed your view and said they have taken effect. i will not oppose them. but, if you could get a solid deal, with, as you call for, spending cuts and entitlement reform and make a major -- take a chunk out of the national debt, why is the 35% top tax rate which you opposed sacred? >> because every economist that i respect says if you raise tax rates at this time, in fact, the president even said a couple of years ago, it harms the economy. we are trying to help the economy. and, so, unless i can be convinced that raising tax rates will be beneficial, then obviously i think there's reason and ground for my position. but, i also believe that we can and must get an agreement, otherwise i think first of all, the m
to solve our fiscal problems. the deficit will essentially go away. the bad side we're in a deep recession and the deficit will go away. this is an economy that can't afford to have 4% of our spending disappear just next year. we'll see a recession next year almost for sure and for certain. so that's the sense in which i think this is something to worry about. we want -- the recovery is faltering right now and we really don't need congress clubbing it over the head again, pushing us back down yet again. >> yet again. justin, thank you, sir, from the university of michigan. great to have you. >> thanks, alex. >> catch one of the key players in the fiscal cliff negotiations right here on "now" when senator patty murray joins us tomorrow at noon eastern. >>> and coming up after their romney nominee received just over a quarter of the latino vote republicans say they're ready to put up when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. what are they doing about it? so far putting up a lot of window dressing. the display when telemundo's jose diaz-balart joins us ahead. want to try to crack it?
we're running unsustainable deficits and not dealing with our problem. that's exactly what the -- what the speaker is trying to get at. in terms of this issue, again, look, these are all people i like. these are people i agree with philosophically. i also want to do a good deal for the american taxpayer, including 98% of them. if we can take care of their issue -- i think we'll win the debate. i think they agree with us fundamentally that increases in taxes on anybody cost jobs. that's not good. but as long as it's owe their head their taxes might go up, i think they don't really have time to focus on that debate. again, i just think we ought to take that off. we agree with the president on that. but i respect the speaker. i suspect the spepport the spea >> we'll watch how this plays out. >>> joining me is democratic, barbara boxer wrote in politico today. we're looking there at a picture of, senator, of tip o'neill and reagan signing the bill. >> yes. >> on social security reform. you spoke about an earlier issue in your piece today about how they got together in '82, the
in new hampshire say i don't mind sharing some of the cost of dealing with our debt and deficits, but i want to feel like if i'm going to do that that it's going to be fair that everybody is going to be part of sharing in that burden. >> is there something for you, senator, that's an absolute nonstarter? >> well, i think we do need to take social security off the table. because social security has not contributed to the debt and the deficits. and so we do need to fix it for the long-term, but that's a different discussion than the one that we're having about those programs that are actually costing. so i think we do have to look at the cost of health care long-term because that's going to contribute to the debt. >> i also want to ask you about susan rice, she is meeting with senators mccain, graham, and ayott. do you think she has explaining to do with what she said about benghazi? and would you support her if she is nominated for secretary of state? >> she's not yet been nominated. so i'm going to look carefully at her credentials, which i think qualify her very well to be nominated. i
responsibilities. we are in a period where the budget situation in this country, a huge deficit we are facing, the debt confronting this country are limited resources and will continue to limit the resources. i did not believe we worked on budgets and the defense department. i do not believe we have to choose between national security and fiscal security. we are at the pentagon is implementing a strategy that we put together in order to deal with the fiscal challenge we are presented. congress handed us $487 billion to reduce the deficit -- the defense budgets over 10 years. my approach was to say, wait a minute. we are not just going to cut across the board. we are not just going to hollow out the force as we have done in the past. every time we have come out of the war, whether it was korea, vietnam, the cold war, we cut the budget across the board, and we hollowed out the force. we are not going to repeat that mistake, so for that reason, i said to my service chiefs, chairman of the joint chiefs, we have got to sit down and develop a strategy for the future that will provide the defense fo
substantive proposal by an elected official that actually achieves the target of $4 trillion in deficit reductions in a balanced way. >> is there a consensus around that? is there consensus among all parties that $4 trillion is the goal docks "that is the president's goal talking about the longer-term issues -- is that the goal? >> that is the president will talking about the fiscal cliff challenges. he has described that going backed to the spring and summer 2011 as a big deal. it would help put us on a sustainable path that helped create the kind of ratio of deficit to gdp that alan krueger and others have been an discussing. that is his goal. when we talk about the longer- term deficit reduction targets, the near term target, one that could be resolved tomorrow if the house so desired, would be to pass the extension of the middle class tax cuts which would remove a substantial portion of the fiscal cliff right away and would give certainty to consumers and retailers right away. the president, as he has repeatedly, urges the house to do that. we should not hold the middle class hostag
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 77 (some duplicates have been removed)